Thus the judge says that "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" is at complete odds to the original wording and meaning. He ruled on the side of modern perversion of process and law that has be built using feckless chains of stare decisis.
The kind of law modern lawyers take as absolute gospel. Which is strange, since it is absent of gospel, absoluteness, or even logic beyond the logic of fearful power.
He was there "reasonably"~ so he didn't need a warrant. The focus of the court was primarily on whether or not the perp could be charged with an assault on the officer.
My conclusion is that the justices didn't read the final write up at all ~ this is a concoction by a power mad law clerk who's trying to show off to his buddies at the Turkish baths or something.
It's like the conclusions fit some other case ~ maybe ~ but certainly not this one.
The very existence within the courts of ruling by precedent, abrogates the restrictions on govt by the Constitution. THAT is the seed by which our Republic fell.